Back to Search Start Over

Strong regional influence of climatic forcing datasets on global crop model ensembles.

Authors :
Ruane, Alex C.
Phillips, Meridel
Müller, Christoph
Elliott, Joshua
Jägermeyr, Jonas
Arneth, Almut
Balkovic, Juraj
Deryng, Delphine
Folberth, Christian
Iizumi, Toshichika
Izaurralde, Roberto C.
Khabarov, Nikolay
Lawrence, Peter
Liu, Wenfeng
Olin, Stefan
Pugh, Thomas A.M.
Rosenzweig, Cynthia
Sakurai, Gen
Schmid, Erwin
Sultan, Benjamin
Source :
Agricultural & Forest Meteorology. Apr2021, Vol. 300, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

• Systematically examines climatic forcing data in agricultural model performance • Explores uncertainty across up to 91 climate data / crop model combinations • Isolates key climatic features driving interannual yield variation in each region • Quantifies performance of climatic forcing datasets for top countries and crop species • More extensive bias correction improves climatic forcing datasets for crop models We present results from the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase I, which aligned 14 global gridded crop models (GGCMs) and 11 climatic forcing datasets (CFDs) in order to understand how the selection of climate data affects simulated historical crop productivity of maize, wheat, rice and soybean. Results show that CFDs demonstrate mean biases and differences in the probability of extreme events, with larger uncertainty around extreme precipitation and in regions where observational data for climate and crop systems are scarce. Countries where simulations correlate highly with reported FAO national production anomalies tend to have high correlations across most CFDs, whose influence we isolate using multi-GGCM ensembles for each CFD. Correlations compare favorably with the climate signal detected in other studies, although production in many countries is not primarily climate-limited (particularly for rice). Bias-adjusted CFDs most often were among the highest model-observation correlations, although all CFDs produced the highest correlation in at least one top-producing country. Analysis of larger multi-CFD-multi-GGCM ensembles (up to 91 members) shows benefits over the use of smaller subset of models in some regions and farming systems, although bigger is not always better. Our analysis suggests that global assessments should prioritize ensembles based on multiple crop models over multiple CFDs as long as a top-performing CFD is utilized for the focus region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
01681923
Volume :
300
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Agricultural & Forest Meteorology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
148805720
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108313